after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
The decree below is challenged in this court on two grounds only, the first and principal contention being that the lower court had no jurisdiction of the controversy because the amount involved was, as it is said, less than $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Incidentally it is also claimed that the complainants had an adequate remedy at law, and no right, for that reason, to appeal to a court of chancery for relief. Inasmuch as no attempt has been' made in the argument to defend the validity of the ordinance, and as counsel for the city have based their right to a reversal wholly on the two grounds above stated, we shall assume that the ordinance is invalid, as the lower court held, and proceed to inquire whether the amount involved was sufficient to confer jurisdiction and whether the case was properly cognizable by a court of equity.
Concerning the last of these questions, which will be noticed first, it is quite sufficient to say that the complaint which was filed in the lower court may be appropriately termed a “bill of peace.” Story, Eq. Jur. §§ 852, 853. It was filed to obtain a definite determination that the ordinance complained of was void, also to prevent harassing litigation, and to establish the complainants’ right to transact business in the city of Hutchinson, as it had been doing for some years, without complying with the terms of the ordinance. One paragraph of the bill, as heretofore shown, alleged that the city authorities, for the purpose of enforcing compliance with the ordinance, had already caused the arrest of their agents, and were threatening to make further like arrests, and to institute numerous criminal prosecutions, and thereby prevent them from receiving, storing, and making speedy deliveries of goods, as had been their habit. Now, conceding that the validity of the ordinance might have been tried in any one of the criminal prosecutions thus brought by the city, yet, as the right of appeal existed from any judgment which might have been rendered therein, it is apparent that months, and possibly some years, might have elapsed before the invalidity of the ordinance would have been *402definitely established, and that -in the meantime the complainants might and probably would have been compelled' to defend a multitude of suits, and submit to daily interruptions of their business, which would have proven to be very annoying, and probably disastrous. In such a case, the rule that a suit in equity will not lie to restrain the collection of an illegal tax, merely on the ground of its illegality, does not apply, because circumstances are alleged which show that if left to their remedy at law the complainants would probably be subjected to numerous prosecutions, besides sustaining great and irreparable loss in the prosecution of their business. When, in addition to the tact that an illegal tax has been imposed, it further appears that the persons or corporations upon whom it is imposed will be called upon to defend a multitude of suits, or that they will sustain great injury if the state or municipality is left free to enforce the tax by the usual remedies, courts of equity never hesitate to assume jurisdiction and grant injunctions against those who are seeking to enforce the collection of the tax if it appears to be clearly illegal. Dows v. City of Chicago, 11 Wall. 108, 110, 20 L. Ed. 65; Railway Co. v. Cheyenne, 113 U. S. 516, 525, 5 Sup. Ct. 601, 28 L. Ed. 1098; City of Ogden v. Armstrong, 168 U. S. 224, 239, 240, 18 Sup. Ct. 224, 42 L. Ed. 444; Heywood v. City of Buffalo, 14 N. Y. 534.
The other and broader objection to the jurisdiction, that the amount in controversy is inadequate to confer jurisdiction upon the federal court, is based upon the ground that as the bill was filed on August 29, 1900, and the tax from June 1, 1900, to December 31, 1900, was only $500, that was the sole sum in controversy. Counsel for the city say it was only claiming at the time $500, and that the right to collect that amount from the complainants was the only matter in controversy. We think, however, that this view of the case is too narrow and technical. The right which the complainants asserted was the right to transact their business in the city of Hutchinson as theretofore, without being subjected to the onerous and discriminating tax which the municipality had seen fit to impose. They averred that, if the city was left at liberty to enforce the tax in its own way by making daily arrests of its employés, they would eventually quit its service; that the complainants and all other nonresident merchants in their situation would be subjected to the cost and annoyance of defending repeated suits; that they would also be prevented from carrying on their business as they had theretofore done; that they would be compelled to transact business in competition with dealers residing in the city of Hutchinson who were-not subject to the tax; and that in this way they would sustain damages in a sum exceeding $2,000. These allegations were admitted by the demurrer to be true if they were material allegations. From the complainants’ standpoint, therefore,—■ and the case must be judged from their standpoint, and not exclusively from the standpoint of the city,—the amount involved in the litigation was not merely the license tax of $500 which accrued on June 1, 1900, but it was the total amount of their loss incident to the causes aforesaid, if the bill was not entertained, and if the city was left free to pursue its own course in enforcing the ordinance. Our attention has been invited to several cases which were brought to enjoin the collec*403tion of taxes that were alleged to be illegal, in which it was held that the amount in controversy for jurisdictional purposes was the amount* of the tax (Transfer Co. v. Pendergrass, 16 C. C. A. 585, 70 Fed. 1; Walter v. Railroad Co., 147 U. S. 370, 13 Sup. Ct. 348, 37 L. Ed. 206; Railroad Co. v. Walker, 148 U. S. 391, 13 Sup. Ct. 650, 37 L. Ed. 494); but an examination of these cases shows that they are not analogous to the case at bar, in that it did not appear that the complainants would sustain any other direct damage save the amount of the'tax, which, if paid under protest, they could recover in an action at law, if the tax was found to be illegal. The present case is distinguishable from the cases relied upon by the appellants, in that the tax involved is a license tax imposed by a municipality upon a business concern, the payment of which tax may be enforced by fining and imprisoning its employes and by daily arrests that will seriously interfere with the prosecution of complainants’ business, and inflict a much greater direct loss than the amount of the tax. The suit at bar, in view of the allegations touching the effect upon the complainants’ business, if the city is permitted to proceed with the enforcement of the ordinance in its own way, is in reality a bill to prevent the city from breaking up and destroying an established business under the guise of enforcing an illegal ordinance. The pecuniary loss which the complainants would sustain by such an interference with or destruction of their business may, as we think, be properly taken into account in determining the amount in controversy; and, as the bill alleges and the demurrer admits that the damages incident to such wrongful conduct on the part of the city will exceed $2,000, we are of opinion that the jurisdiction of the federal court to entertain the bill was rightfully upheld. The decree below is accordingly affirmed.